Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Boubakar Barry boubakarbarry at
Thu Jan 4 09:59:26 UTC 2018

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Sander Steffann <sander at> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> I thought the keywords has always been ROUGH CONSENSUS and  it means there
> are likely going to be dissents, as long as the dissenting voices are not
> in the majority.
> That is not a good definition of rough consensus. Please study RFC 7282.
> So in a population of 100, 25 is a minority. Which we can conclude that a
> rough consensus have been reached. No matter how painful.
> Nope. This example from the RFC very much applies here: "Even if the
> working group chair makes a working group "last call" on the document,
> and 100 people actively reply and say, "This document is ready to go
> forward", if the open issue hasn't been addressed, there's still no
> consensus, not even rough consensus. It's the existence of the unaddressed
> open issue, not the number of people, which is determinative in judging
> consensus."
> And this is where the mistake was made, and why I feel that the decision
> for consensus has to be appealed.

"Being addressed" doesn't necessary mean to the full satisfaction of those
who raised issues. Otherwise, it just means veto, which is unacceptable.


> Cheers,
> Sander
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list